Les, Les, Les....

You keep saying there is no standard but as you well know, THERE IS! 1
watt/1 meter/ 1kHz This is the accepted standard that the reputable
companies use. I'm sure you must know this. Yes, some cheat, but by and
large the reputable companies follow these guidlines.

Boston Acoustics is one of those companies that cheats.


And as far as personal experience, what I meant was that personal
experience
is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, however, it CANNOT BE DISPUTED! This is EXACTLY why
only personal experince is used as testimony in court, not hersay. It may
not be right, but you CANNOT tell me I DID NOT SEE OR HEAR WHAT I SAW OR
HEARD. That is why I said it is irrifutable. Get it?

I cannot tell you that you don't THINK you heard what you did. I'm sure you
feel you heard something. But that doesn't mean that this thing wasn't a
figment of your imagination. This happens all the time - for instance, when
someone buys a $300 RCA cable they think it sounds better (fuller, more
crisp, blah blah blah) than their Radio Shack cables. But if you conducted
a simple double blind experiment with the proper controls, you'd be able to
remove their bias from the equation and you'd see that the perceived
difference was imagined.

This is opposed to
someone who gives advice based on something they heard or read. If I have
observed that sensitivity ratings do give me an idea of how loud a speaker
will sound, then it is true for me and nothing you can say will convince
me
otherwise, hence, irrifutable. We are driffting into the realm of the
philosophical here, grasshopper (if a tree falls in the woods...). I hope
this clarifies my position once and for all as I am really tiring of this
thread.

I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But I
would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it fails. I
think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up for
you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers to
try.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:21:57 -0500, "MZ"
wrote:


I cannot tell you that you don't THINK you heard what you did. I'm sure you
feel you heard something. But that doesn't mean that this thing wasn't a
figment of your imagination. This happens all the time - for instance, when
someone buys a $300 RCA cable they think it sounds better (fuller, more
crisp, blah blah blah) than their Radio Shack cables. But if you conducted
a simple double blind experiment with the proper controls, you'd be able to
remove their bias from the equation and you'd see that the perceived
difference was imagined.

This is why I absolutely **love** it when magazines do the
double-blind/ABX tests. You have audiophiles crowing about how
stellar their $500/foot interconnects sound (or the $20k amplifier, or
the difference between a ceramic or glass turntable platter, etcetera
etcetera etcetera). They'll say that the difference is "night and
day", or "a complete transformation", but time and time again, they've
shown themselves to be completely unable to tell the difference if
they don't know beforehand which one they're listening to.

For those not familiar with ABX or double-blind tests, here's an
example:

You claim to be able to hear the difference between "Brand A" and
"Brand B" interconnects. We set up a stereo system so that we can
select between the two sets of interconnects.

You listen to "Brand A" for as long as you like, knowing that it's
"Brand A". Then, you listen to "Brand B", for as long as you like,
knowing that it's "Brand B".

Finally, I hook up either "Brand A" or "Brand B", but I don't tell you
which. You have to listen to it and tell me whether you're hearing
"Brand A" or "Brand B".

This process (listen to "A", listen to "B", then listen to "X" and
identify it as "A" or "B") is repeated several times (usually at least
ten times) so that you can be statistically certain the results aren't
from guessing.

It's a lot of fun to watch the hard-core audiophiles come up with
reasons why ABX comparisons aren't valid. I think it's an "emperor's
new clothes" kind of thing, where they're afraid to admit they've
bought snake oil at $1000/ounce.

Scott Gardner

I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But I
would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it fails.
I
think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up for
you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers
to
try.

Oh, geez, here we go again....

I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part and
more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed. I could sit here
and listen all day to "why" Cardas Audio cables sound better than Kimber
Cable. I could be shown graphs, shown complicated formulas, I could be told
all about Cardas' double-shielded balanced quad-axial 16.5 AWG constant Q
enameled multi-gauge litz conductor with Teflon insulation and urethane
jacket. There are perhaps dozens of reasons "why" Cardas should sound
better than Kimber. But obviously, the ONLY thing that counts is listening.
This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important as
the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity
figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by
listening? That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is
about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the loudness
of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them.

MOSFET

Oh, geez, here we go again....

I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part
and
more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed. I could sit here
and listen all day to "why" Cardas Audio cables sound better than Kimber
Cable. I could be shown graphs, shown complicated formulas, I could be
told
all about Cardas' double-shielded balanced quad-axial 16.5 AWG constant Q
enameled multi-gauge litz conductor with Teflon insulation and urethane
jacket. There are perhaps dozens of reasons "why" Cardas should sound
better than Kimber. But obviously, the ONLY thing that counts is
listening.
This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important
as
the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity
figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by
listening? That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is
about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the
loudness
of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them.

What you're essentially saying is that we know nothing about the scientific
world, and nothing can be predicted. Sorry, but I don't think that is
accurate. We know all about speakers, really. We can make any kind of
measurements we want, and we know which one will play at a higher SPL than
the other, and what the power content as a function of frequency will be.
This isn't magic. It's fundamental laws of electricity and magnetism,
coupled with fluid dynamics and maybe some thermodynamics thrown in there
for fun. Now, unless you're willing to throw the entire field of physics
into disarray by proclaiming it's wrong, then you really can't argue with
this.

You've obviously had a lot of experience listening to speakers, but you
haven't listened to all of them. If you had, you'd realize that some
speakers may claim greater sensitivity ratings than others but still don't
play as loud (either in terms of SPL or perceived loudness). I believe you
when you say the ones that you've personally compared sound like they follow
the pattern. Luck of the draw, I guess. But I think you're making a
mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all
speakers.

But I think you're making a
mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all
speakers.

I have NEVER said that my experience can be applied to all speakers, in
fact, I have no idea what I might have said that gave you that idea. In
fact, that is preciesly the point I have been trying to make. In the world
of car audio speakers, I have used only a handful. I only intended to share
MY experiences.

It is YOU who is extending your conclusions to ALL sensitivity ratings. You
said they are all meaningless. Have you annalyzed how EVERY speaker
manufactureer measures their sensitivity? I doubt it.

Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you
can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should be
ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That
presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their
speakers sensitivity. I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm
sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to
what you know for sure. For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity
differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to
other speakers. Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the
kind of information I find useful, personal observations.

Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this
issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity ratings
are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story.

MOSFET

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...
If there is not baseline, or standard for the measurement of the
spec then it becomes virtually meaningless. It is entirely possible for
2
different speakers to have different sensitivity ratings and yet still
play
at the same volume.

Les, Les, Les....

You keep saying there is no standard but as you well know, THERE IS! 1
watt/1 meter/ 1kHz This is the accepted standard that the reputable
companies use.

It is NOT the accepted standard. There is no standard! A company can go out
and get the rating however they choose. A standard would imply that all
companies have to follow certain guidelines in order to publish the specs.
But they don't. Nutritional Information on your cereal box has a standard,
car audio ratings do not. Besides, even if some (heck even a majority) abide
how are you going to know which ones do and which ones don't? Then let's not
forget that for many speakers (subwoofers, midbass drivers) 1k does not even
factor into the frequency range that it plays, making it even more useless!

I'm sure you must know this. Yes, some cheat, but by and
large the reputable companies follow these guidlines.


There not cheating, they are choosing to follow a different procedure. How
can you be cheating if there is not a universally accepted procedure?

And as far as personal experience, what I meant was that personal
experience
is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, however, it CANNOT BE DISPUTED!

Well, you never said that. In fact I interpreted it the opposite, as I am
sure most people did with the way you went on and on how "tech stuff" has no
place and your experience is all that matters. I even said in my first post
that I wouldn't doubt someone's experience but I would question what they
attributed it too. Sometimes it is just our mind playing tricks. Sometimes
it's because you sent to much power to the driver. Or sometimes you just
hooked something up wrong. But we can often contribute our "experience" to
the wrong thing and BAM another audio myth is continued or started.

This is EXACTLY why
only personal experince is used as testimony in court, not hersay. It may
not be right, but you CANNOT tell me I DID NOT SEE OR HEAR WHAT I SAW OR
HEARD.

I can't tell you that you THOUGHT you saw or heard something. But if there
is nothing there then I sure as heck can tell you that your personal
experience was wrong. If you claimed to hear a difference in the speaker
cables when in fact none existed then are you telling me that there was a
difference because you heard it?

That is why I said it is irrifutable. Get it? This is opposed to
someone who gives advice based on something they heard or read. If I have
observed that sensitivity ratings do give me an idea of how loud a speaker
will sound, then it is true for me and nothing you can say will convince
me
otherwise, hence, irrifutable.

Just because someone cannot convince you otherwise doesn't mean it is
irrefutable. Irrefutable means impossible to disprove. In my above example I
can disprove it, hence it is NOT irrefutable. Whether or not you choose to
look at the facts and agree does not matter. Unfortunately you are relying
on imperfect observations and "Testing Equipment" (ears, eyes) to attempt to
make a perfect claim.

We are driffting into the realm of the
philosophical here, grasshopper (if a tree falls in the woods...). I hope
this clarifies my position once and for all as I am really tiring of this
thread.


Sorry, nothing philosophical here, just science and engineering. You need to
understand that without the knowledge of the details of the specs (and those
you are attempting to make a comparison) in every instance you cannot make a
fair comparison. Sorry, not matter what you think you have heard or
experienced won't change that. I work in the pro sound field for a living
and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high sensitive
and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's
experiences were right?

Les

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...
I don't think anyone is saying that your experiences didn't happen. But
I
would counter your general rule by giving you examples of where it
fails.
I
think I've adequately explained the "why" part. Hopefully it adds up
for
you, because I'm not planning on going out and sending you some speakers
to
try.

Oh, geez, here we go again....

I know you hate hearing this but I am less interested in the "why" part
and
more interested in what YOU, MZ, have actually observed But obviously,
the ONLY thing that counts is listening.

You're kidding right? You're not actually using esoteric cables as a
credible example?

Ok, even if you are. Unfortunately the argument "the only that counts is
listening" is merely a way to circumvent the science and physics at work and
is false. Your mind has the incredible ability to play tricks on you (seen
any illusions lately?) There is a thing called psychoacoustics. Which is why
not only listening is important but the science behind it is important as
well. Listening tells you what you like and the science helps to quelch some
of your bias' and let you listen to what really is, or isn't, happening.

This is a good example why the "why" of it all is simply not as important
as
the ultimate result. Yes, thanks to you I now know "why" sensitivity
figures shouldn't matter, but is that what you have actually observed by
listening?

I told you what I observed. So who's right?

That's all I ever asked. Remember, MZ, this whole thing is
about LISTENING to music. If we are going to give opinions on the
loudness
of speakers, let's hope we have actually listened to them.

EXACTLY!!! Actually listen to them. Why screw with any of the numbers at
all?!?! Why look at this number or that just find ones you like. That is the
point! Mark, is that not what you have been getting at for oh, 7 years of
posting?

Les

I work in the pro sound field for a living
and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high
sensitive
and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's
experiences were right?

Les

I'm not going to play the "I do this for a living game so I'm right".
I'm sure everyone is very impressed with your credentials.

MOSFET

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...

Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you
can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should
be
ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That
presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their
speakers sensitivity.

No it doesn't. It presumes enough personal experience with several brands to
realize that they all have different methods of analyzing and attributing
the data recieved.

I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm
sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to
what you know for sure.

And what you know for sure is NOTHING! For most manufactures you do not know
how the ratings were achieved, and the few you do don't have the same
standard. Therefore the numbers cannot be trusted to mean the same thing so
you should just ignore them unless you can verify. And even then what is the
point? Just listen to them.

For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity
differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to
other speakers.

If they measure it differently then no it would not be useful for
comparisons.

Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the
kind of information I find useful, personal observations.

Ok. Observe that I have installed hundreds of systems and dealt with tons of
clients. I never install a stereo and ask if someone can tell that
sensitivity difference. The don't care, they just want what speaker sounds
good to them!

Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this
issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity
ratings
are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story.

mosfet, you put way too much emphasis on your experience without qualifying
it. Your experience must fall in line with accepted science for it to be
valid. Your experience is valid, and important, but it is equally as
important to understand why and what you experienced.

Les

"MOSFET" wrote in message
...
I work in the pro sound field for a living
and can tell you that I have compared low sensitive stuff to high
sensitive
and the results were not in line with what you are telling me. So who's
experiences were right?

Les

I'm not going to play the "I do this for a living game so I'm right".
I'm sure everyone is very impressed with your credentials.

MOSFET

You asked for personal experiences. I work in that field every day, using
different speakers, different arrangements, and different specs. I am
prefacing when and where and how often, and the circumstances I experience
these things and you get all ****y about it. You asked for personal
experience and I gave that to you, what's your problem? I think it is
important to know the circumstances and frequency of the experience.

My experiences do not fall in line with yours, and since you say that
personal experience is irrefutable, then tell me who is right? We cannot
have differing observations is each one is irrefutable.

Les

MZ, you know, I think this whole thread has gotten way too heated and way
off base.

I AM NOT an EE. I am NOT an installer. There are MANY in this group who,
I'm sure, have much more experience than me. I am not an expert in anything
EXCEPT (and this is the important part) what I have done and seen.

I'm really not saying this to brag, but I didn't just fall off the turnip
truck when it comes to this, however. I've been on this newsgroup on and
off for ten years giving advice (using different names), I've competed (and
won!) local IASCA competitions, I worked at Phoenix Gold in 2000-2001, and I
have installed many systems for myself and friends.

The ONLY point I ever tried to make here was that I have, indeed, observed
that sensitivity specifications were helpful (to me) in predicting how loud
a speaker will play. That's it! I'm not saying that all sensitivity
ratings are right. Maybe I'm completely wrong. This is JUST what I
observed.

I didn't mean for this to become a huge war of words. I just feel like I
have used enough speakers over the last 20 years to offer this perspective.
Again, maybe it is wrong.

Now come on, let's all kiss and make up

MOSFET

My experiences do not fall in line with yours, and since you say that
personal experience is irrefutable, then tell me who is right? We cannot
have differing observations is each one is irrefutable.

Neither is right!!!!

You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M RIGHT!
Geez, this isn't about right and wrong.

And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you
can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but MY
observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be
wrong.

I'm saying this is what I have observed. That's all. Take it or leave it.

MOSFET

But I think you're making a
mistake when you try to extend your own personal observations to all
speakers.

I have NEVER said that my experience can be applied to all speakers, in
fact, I have no idea what I might have said that gave you that idea. In
fact, that is preciesly the point I have been trying to make. In the
world
of car audio speakers, I have used only a handful. I only intended to
share
MY experiences.

When you say that the sensitivity rating matters, and I point out to you
that it doesn't, you counter with your own personal observations from a
"handful" of speakers. My explanation, however, was all-encompassing. It
deals with speakers in general, and how there's more to the story of SPL
than mere sensitivity ratings at 1 watt, 1 meter, and 1kHz.


It is YOU who is extending your conclusions to ALL sensitivity ratings.
You
said they are all meaningless. Have you annalyzed how EVERY speaker
manufactureer measures their sensitivity? I doubt it.

It's not necessary. I'll just refer to the standard that you brought up
earlier in the thread, and assume that a good portion of the manufacturers
use that "standard". Well, that standard does not tell the whole story. In
fact, sensitivity in and of itself does not give us the information
necessary to predict which speaker is going to play louder - that is, unless
we're talking about which speaker is going to play 1 watt 1kHz tones louder
from 1 meter away on-axis.


Again, we are going in circles but like I have said I just don't think you
can make a statement like all sensitivity ratings are useless and should
be
ignored. That's what got me going on this in the first place. That
presumes you know EVERYTHING about how EVERY manufacturerer measures their
speakers sensitivity. I know, I know, BA doen't play by the rules and I'm
sure many others don't as well, it just seems to me it is best to stick to
what you know for sure. For instance, maybe BA measures their sensitivity

differently, but maybe the results are usefull in comparing BA speakers to
other speakers. Could this be possible? Do you know? If so, THIS is the
kind of information I find useful, personal observations.

I don't understand what you're getting at. How could BA be making their
speakers easier to compare to others by using a different testing
methodology than the others?


Again, MZ, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this
issue. You see, you are NEVER going to convince me that sensitivity
ratings
are useless. My EXPERIENCE says they are. End of story.

Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do they
side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they
side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about
whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is
relevant.

Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they
side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they
side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about
whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is
relevant.

I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about
who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or
leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here.

MOSFET

Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they
side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do they
side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind about
whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is
relevant.

On second thought, you're right. A reader would have to decide who is wrong
or right. So, again for my part, I am 37 years old and have used dozens of
speakers (I listed the brands on a previous post) and I have found that
sensitivity ratings are a GENERAL guide to how loud a speaker will sound
when driven by a particular source. You say that sensitivity specs don't
matter (I guess manufactureers provide those specs just for the hell of it?)
because some companies measure differently, a meaasurment at 1kHz is
meaningless when evaluating subs, etc.

In the imortal words of Bill O'Reilly, we'll let the folks decide.

MOSFET

Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they
side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do
they
side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind
about
whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is
relevant.

I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about
who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or
leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here.

No one's trying to win. A clarification of the issue is important though.
Basic google searches on car audio issues almost always bring up these sorts
of threads (usually web sites that link to usenet). So someone who may be
interested to know how much stock to put into sensitivity ratings will
probably want to know the answer. The fact that you've posted your
observations is helpful, but your initial assertion that sensitivity ratings
are reliable indicators for how loud a speaker will sound is not.

snip
You say that sensitivity specs don't
matter (I guess manufactureers provide those specs just for the hell of
it?)

Pretty much, yeah. Manufacturers provide a lot of ratings for things. Boss
provides power output ratings for their amplifiers. Do you consider those
ratings reliable? What about in comparison with Phoenix Gold's ratings?
What about tweeters that claim 100 watt power handling ability (which
usually refers to the broadband power content of an unfiltered signal before
being filtered)? Most amplifier manufacturers provide damping factor
ratings, but it's been demonstrated time and time again that it's a
meaningless spec (anything greater than about 10 or 20 can't be
distinguished from 500). Ditto for slew rate specs and a whole list of
others. So yeah, I consider these ratings to be worthless because they
don't give us any information about the amplifier.

Only power ratings are useful in that it gives you some idea what the
*relative* power output is between two amplifiers of the same line.

MOSFET wrote:

You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M RIGHT!
Geez, this isn't about right and wrong.

And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you
can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but MY
observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be
wrong.

ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE

Mosfet, take that irrrefutable statement out of your posts and there
probably wont be any arguement... I see what your trying to say and I
think irrefutable is the wrong word..

ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE!!

Eddie Runner

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:39:34 -0500, "MZ"
wrote:

Hopefully others reading this will come to the decision themselves - do
they
side with the person who provides an explanation and examples, or do
they
side with the person who doesn't? Others can make up their own mind
about
whether or not a subwoofer's rating while measured at 1 watt and 1kHz is
relevant.

I don't care who readers agree with or not! Man, this is just NOT about
who is right or wrong. I simply stated what I have observed. Take it or
leave it. I don't care. I'm not trying to "win" here.

No one's trying to win. A clarification of the issue is important though.
Basic google searches on car audio issues almost always bring up these sorts
of threads (usually web sites that link to usenet). So someone who may be
interested to know how much stock to put into sensitivity ratings will
probably want to know the answer. The fact that you've posted your
observations is helpful, but your initial assertion that sensitivity ratings
are reliable indicators for how loud a speaker will sound is not.


What if both speakers' sensitivity ratings are listed as being
measured at one Watt, one meter, 1000 Hz? Would the specs be valid
for comparison then, or would we assume that one or both manufacturers
are simply lying outright?

Scott

What if both speakers' sensitivity ratings are listed as being
measured at one Watt, one meter, 1000 Hz? Would the specs be valid
for comparison then, or would we assume that one or both manufacturers
are simply lying outright?

I hesitate to use the word "lying", because I don't think there are very
many manufacturers that would outright fabricate numbers. But there are a
lot of variables at play, and you never know what they're doing exactly.

Anyway, if the sensitivity ratings are accurate and the test is the same,
then the sensitivity ratings will tell us...well, they'll tell us what the
sensitivity of the speaker is at 1w, 1m, 1khz. They really won't tell us a
whole lot more than that though. They won't tell us which one will be
louder at 1m, 1kHz, because we don't know the impedance of the two speakers
at 1kHz. But, even if we assume that the impedance is identical at 1kHz for
both speakers, we don't know what the impedance and sensitivity plots as a
function of frequency look like. Then, if we assume that the impedance and
sensitivity plots are identical for both speakers, then we have some idea of
what's going on at 1 watt, but we don't know what the effects of power
compression are on each of them.

My point is that there are too many variables at stake to be able to predict
which speaker will play louder based on a single number.

You're just not getting what I'm saying! I'm NOT FRICKI'N SAYING I'M
RIGHT!
Geez, this isn't about right and wrong.

And I meant my OBSERVATIONS are irrifutable. If I see a blue plane, you
can't say to me "no you didn't". Maybe the plane was really pink, but
MY
observations (perceptions even) cannot be challanged, though they can be
wrong.

ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE

Mosfet, take that irrrefutable statement out of your posts and there
probably wont be any arguement... I see what your trying to say and I
think irrefutable is the wrong word..

ANYTHING IS REFUTABLE!!

Eddie Runner

Yes, you are absolutely right. Irrifutable was a poor choice of words. I
totally agree, anything is refutable.

The point I was trying to make was that, to me, what someone personally
observes or experiences is much more valuable and reliable (still not
exactly the right word) than someone who gives advice based on something
they HEARD or READ. But, of course, just because you observe something,
doesn't mean you observed it accurately or that you are right. That's all I
meant to say.

MOSFET

Seems like you really know a lot about the subject. But dang, if you
think about all that for every speaker I bet it takes you two years to
decide on a pair.....just teasing!

In the end, the speaker sounds good to a person or it doesn't. There
are many "whys" but it still sounds good or it doesn't. If it sounds
good and you can afford it...buy it, if it doesn't don't buy it.

DA

Les wrote: "I am not saying that personal experience is not needed, because
it is. But
without a strong "tech stuff" background you can and will often attribute
your personal experience to the wrong thing."

So very very true. For many years I've relied on my ears and personal
experiences to guide my way through my obsessive car stereo addiction. But
in the last few years, in particular this past year, I've accelerated my
"technical" understanding of the field and I've had to re-evaluate many of
the things my ears and experiences have "taught" me. Using these two
avenues of knowledge together has really changed my understanding. If I had
it to do all over again I would have made it a point to learn the technical
stuff from the get-go. Problem is, at least in my area, there's not a lot
of other people to learn from and be inspired by. I've done it all by
myself.

Tony

--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

MOSFET wrote: "Wait a sec, where do you think the marketing guys get their
information? Do you think they pull it out of thin air (it sounds like you
do!). No, they
get it from the engineers. I worked at Phoenix Gold in marketing and we
worked hand in hand with the engineers. THE ENGINEERS WROTE THE SPECS, NOT
THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT. The engineers also approved all promotional copy
so (at least for PG as this is my only experince actually inside a company)
you are flat out wrong on this."

I've found that PG seems to be considerably and consistently better than a
lot of other companies when giving honest ratings and measurements of their
products. Hence, your employment experience in this field may be different
than someone that works for another company.

Tony



--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

MOSFET wrote: "But this is not what we are talking about. MZ said that
sensitivity specs supplied by manufactureers are meaningless and proceeded
to give reasons why this is so. Again, for the umpteenth time, after buying
dozens of speakers in my life (for myself and others) I have found that
sensitivity ratings do indeed give a ROUGH idea of how loud a speaker will
play."

And Les wrote: "And for the umpteenth time the spec is useless because there
is no baseline, a standard or reference, or an agreed upon testing
procedure. It is not that
the parameter itself is meaningless, it is just meaningless in the context
it is used. Even a rough idea of how loud it will be still won't tell you if
it sounds good."

I would compare this to an amplifier's damping factor. I had a friend argue
to the death that the reason his Arc Audio amplifiers were so damn good was
because of their (outrageously) high DFs. I tried to explain to him over
and over that a DF measurement is meaningless becuase there is no idustry
standard (or baseline as Les states) of comparison. It's not that DF isn't
a valid measurement, it's because each manufacturer chooses to measure it
differently. It's like saying car "A" is faster than car "B", but car "C"
is faster than the other two...but if each of the cars' speedometers are the
only testing source and each is a little different than the other, then the
comparison is useless. Now if you measured each cars' speed with the same
speed measuring device then I would tend to believe a claim as to which car
was indeed faster.

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

MOSFET wrote: "And as far as personal experience, what I meant was that
personal experience is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, however, it CANNOT BE DISPUTED!
This is EXACTLY why only personal experince is used as testimony in court,
not hersay. It may
not be right, but you CANNOT tell me I DID NOT SEE OR HEAR WHAT I SAW OR
HEARD."

Actually, there are multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule in which it IS
allowed in court.

And yes, I CAN tell you didn't see or hear something you THOUGHT you saw or
heard. Like when you're WRONG!! lol

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

Tony, your conclusions are spot on and I think you have nicely summerized
the debate. I, too, in recent years have wanted to understand the "tech
stuff" better.

I guess the only thing you said that I would take issue with, is the
ascertion that there is no standardized measurment for sensitivity. For the
reputable companies (this is key), there is, 1 meter, 1 kHz, 2.8 volts(1
watt). Now Mark contends that this is useless unless all you listen to is 1
kHz test tones. I disagree. I find that for those companies that measure
sensitivity this way, one does get a general idea of how loud a speaker will
play when driven by a particualr source. Now maybe I'm wrong. I need to be
very careful what I say here or I will touch off another thread-war. I'm
not saying that Mark is wrong. When you look at all the speakers ever made,
I have used a tiny, tiny fraction. But this is what my experience tells me.
Take it, or leave it.

MOSFET

Thanks MOSFET.

I can see both sides of the debate.

I for one have NEVER looked at speaker sensitivity ratings as a guide for
purchasing. Therefore, I have no actual practical experiences. But
knowing a little about the industry, I am very leery of paying any attention
to most specifications. I'm a HUGE fan of PG amps and I do pay attention to
their specs because every source I've asked says they're fairly accurate.
However, this is not the industry's norm. So whatever information I learn
from studying PG amp specs is more than likely worthless if I start to
compare them to other brands. I can only assume that SPL ratings are the
same way.

I think this "argument" has a lot to do with the fact that you believe (and
rightly so) that sensitivy ratings, when always measured the same "should"
be a good way of comparing speakers. What MZ and Les are saying (I believe)
is that unless ALL of the manufacturers measure the SAME way, the spec is
useless. You're saying that in your experience from the speakers you have
used, you have heard perceptible differences in volume in those speakers
respective to their SPL specs. Maybe you have. What no one's asked (I
think) is how accurate are your ears over the course of time from one
speaker brand to another to judge which one is louder relative to its SPL
spec? In other words, if you have a 6.5" Diamond Audio and a 6.5" Alpine
coaxial (same impedence) mounted in a sound board next to each other, and
each received the exact same amount of power, and the Diamond's had a 86dB
SPL rating and the Alpine had a 91dB SPL rating, then you "should" be able
to hear that the Alpine's are 5dB louder, right? (let's assume for this
example that both brands' SPL ratings were obtained used the same exact
testing method) However, if you had the Diamond's in your car for 7 months
and then switched to the Alpine's could you REALLY tell me you could hear
that same 5dB difference as in the board example? I doubt it...there's too
many variables that come into play in the real world vs. a sound board.

I hope that made sense.

Tony


--
2001 Nissan Maxima SE Anniversary Edition
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure

2001 Chevy S10 ZR2
Pioneer DEH-P9600MP (Just gettin' started)

What MZ and Les are saying (I believe) is that unless ALL of the
manufacturers measure the SAME way, the spec is useless.

Actually, just to clarify, with the sensitivity spec (unlike some of the
other specs), it's not the uniform testing methodology that I'm concerned
about, but rather that the measurement of a speaker's sensitivity at 1 watt
and at 1kHz and at 1 meter doesn't provide us with enough information to be
able to predict which speaker is going to play louder. But no, it doesn't
help when companies like Boston Acoustics, and others I suppose, decide to
make the measurement differently from everyone else.